Yes, I've seen that offered as evidence before. But before accepting that as sufficient it is appropriate to consider two things. 1. A "promise" is a very explicite statement. It is a vow. People claiming Bush "broke his promise" should have a very clear reference to him making such a promise before they condemn him for breaking it. Obviously, such evidence does not exist. 2. It is important to look at more than just selected excerpts of Bush's interview with Russert to draw any conclusions. Before the snippet you offered in your post, Russert specifically asked Bush what he looks for when considering someone for the nomination to the court. Here is Bush's response...
"Well, let me tell you what I'd like to know. I'd like to know are we compatible from a philosophical perspective on a wide range of issues. But the most important view I want to know is are you a strict constructionist, Mr. Jurist? Will you strictly interpret the Constitution or will you use your bench as a way to legislate? That's the kind of judges I've named in the state of Texas. On of the--I've got a record on this. ". No promise there. Later, Bush repeats that the most important thing he looks for in a judge is...
"The most primary issue--the most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States?" It isn't until Russert asks him which Supreme Court justices he really respects that Bush brings up Scalia. And even then, this is what he says about Scalia...
"Well, I don't think you're going to find many people to be actually similar to him. He's an unusual man. He's an intellect. The reason I like him so much is I got to know him here in Austin when he came down. He's witty, he's interesting, he's firm. There's a lot of reasons why I like Judge Scalia. And I like a lot of the other judges as well.". Again, where is the promise. He likes Scalia because he knows him, he's witty, interesting and firm. But does he promise to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Absolutely not. That this excerpt is offered as the best evidence that Bush "promised to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" just shows how weak the support for such claims are.
And I will say again, that many make the claim that "Bush broke his promise" out of ignorance. But some know the truth and still make the claim. That makes them liars. And someone who lies to support an argument does little more than further erode the case he is arguing.
GWB :"But the most important view I want to know is are you a strict constructionist, Mr. Jurist? Will you strictly interpret the Constitution or will you use your bench as a way to legislate? ... "The most primary issue--the most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States?"
Rokke: But does he promise to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Absolutely not. ... many make the claim that "Bush broke his promise" out of ignorance. But some know the truth and still make the claim. That makes them liars.
You argument is based on sophisty and looking for clear-text language by GWB. It's not fair, I don't think, because you are using a technicality to attempt to dissolve an honestly felt sentiment.
The phrase "I expected GWB to nominate judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia" is a shorthand for expressing what is in fact, a somewhat subjective expectation.
I am in fact disappointed. The pick does not meet my subjective expectation, which I think is a reasonable interpreation of all the words uttered during the course of the campaign, and since.
For you to flat out call me a liar based on your reasoning is stunning.